accident and need help

[mickman]

hi everyone

i was recently involved in an accident. i was driving along, 50 mph, i slipped on the road due to ice and hit the brakes. my car turned a little to the side , a car that was travelling behind me instead of braking behind me tried to go around me and hit me in the side , turned me upside down and into the ditch. now thank god no one was hurt but since then

1. the other person in question has made a statement to the guards
2. she says she has back and neck pain and is attending treatment
3. she is looking for car and personal injury compensation
4. the gaurds rang me last nite really trying to convince me to say i was wrong and accept liability , they are now charging me with careless driving and said i can just pay the fine and get 4 points etc

why should i do this, am i correct in saying that she should have been far enough behind me to brake and stop regardless of what was happening to my car. im really ****ed off now, the guard rang me at 10 pm and told me this, can you belive that like??

i just wanted to forget the whole thing, but now i want to get her back and sue her. do i have rights here or at the very least can i get her claim thrown out and this silly carless driving challenge from the guards. i have always heard that if a car goes into the back /side of you then its their fault. the guard said that she went out to go around me as thats the natural thing to do, i would have thought to hit the brakes is the natural thing to do myslef. any help or opinions would be great

 

[DavyJones]

have you reported it to your insurance company? Do not admit liability. Your insurance company will decide if it's worth fighting.

 

[mickman]

thanks for the reply. i did tell them , they assumed each would pay for their own and that woudl be the end of it. they couldt believe when i told them i was being charged with careless driving.

 

[DavyJones]

AFAIK, the charge is a private thing, nothing to do with insurance firm. Were there witnesses? Looks like you may need to hire solicitor to defend you on charge and it looks like other party will sue insurance company. Had accident a few years ago and other party was sueing me and when I counter-sued if was dropped fairly lively. we both paid for our own damage.
Its a real pain, best bet is to talk to solicitor on tuesday.

 

[RedDevil]

You should be clear as to the distinction between the Civil and Criminal

The claims of the other driver are Civil and if they go to Court will have no regard to what the Gardai do, You will have to be guided by your Insurance company

If the Gardai want to bring a case against you there is nothing you can do about it. Make no statements do not admit to any fault on your part.

 

[mathepac]

... i was driving along, 50 mph, i slipped on the road due to ice and hit the brakes ...

If you were travelling at that speed in icy conditions then a charge of careless driving is probably sustainable.

If you braked from that speed in icy conditions then a charge of careless driving is probably sustainable.

... my car turned a little to the side , a car that was travelling behind me instead of braking behind me tried to go around me ...

That sounds like sensible driving / avoiding action taking the icy conditions into consideration and the fact that your car at that stage by your own admission was out of control.

Sorry, but whatever about the personal injuries and vehicle damage claim, I think you have a case to answer for careless driving based on your version of events.

Is there any chance that the vehicle behind you went out of control on the ice, struck you from behind, knocked you across the road, then rammed you in the side and turned you over?

I know from experience that shock and trauma can make recalling the precise sequence of events in a situation like this difficult.

 

[rmelly]

That sounds like sensible driving / avoiding action taking the icy conditions into consideration and the fact that your car at that stage by your own admission was out of control.

I think this is key - your braking made you further go out of control which she presumably observed, so her braking was likely to have the same effect.

I also think you are underestimating the crash - after all your car ended up upside down, not a regular occurance. Even given the ice, it must have been quite an impact? What was the damage to her car?

How far behind you was she?

Is there any chance that the vehicle behind you went out of control on the ice, struck you from behind, knocked you across the road, then rammed you in the side and turned you over?

Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, if so my apologies, but the OP seems clear on what happened. This comment could be construed as suggesting he change his story.

 

[gebbel]

If you were travelling at that speed in icy conditions then a charge of careless driving is probably sustainable.

If you braked from that speed in icy conditions then a charge of careless driving is probably sustainable.

.

Agreed. To the OP: I don't see your case at all.

 

[mickman]

guys in all fairness. to be honest it was my sister that was in the crash - not me. i just said me to make it easier. 50mph was probably an exageration as its an extremely busy road and she is a very safe driver. the other girl involved was 18 yrs old so i really dont think that she swerved out to avoid her, when the most natural reaction in the world is to hit the brakes. an 18 yr old girl is hardly michael schumacher.

both cars were written off, and as my sisters car was stopped then the driver behind must have been going at quite a speed. so i would consider that careless driving. also she went out on the road to avoid my sister, there could have been on coming traffic and she could have killed people - dangerous driving.

my sister is going to solicitor tuesday and counter suing anyway

 

[mickman]

the whole thing happened anyway cos the driver in front of my sister braked suddenly, my sis braked then and car skeeted a little and veered to the side and then the girl behind came up and hit my sister. in all fairness , my sis was back far enough not to hit the car in front of her but the other girl wasnt far enough behind my sister to stop.

you are legally obliged to be far enough behind a car to be able to brake and stop safely

 

[Guest120]

Really your best best if for your sister to seek professional legal advice.

Your just going to get varying opinions here which as far as I can see won't bring your nearer any resolution of the matter at hand.

now i want to get her back and sue her.

If revenge is something you are after then I'm surprised this thread was allowed develop at all.

 

[Vanilla]

both cars were written off, and as my sisters car was stopped then the driver behind must have been going at quite a speed.

Are you saying your sister's car was stopped when this other party hit her? That puts a different complexion on it.

Actually I don't agree with other posters saying that trying to overtake a car which is clearly out of control is safe. I would have thought that in itself was careless driving. Which your sister should now allege against this other driver to the gardai and insist that they bring similar charges against her. If your sister is convicted of careless driving the other party will have an excellent civil claim against her, and vice versa.

I agree that going to a solicitor now is the best thing to do- certainly tell her not to make a statement without legal advice and perhaps ask the solicitor to draft the statement for her.

 

[mathepac]

guys in all fairness. to be honest it was my sister that was in the crash - not me. i just said me to make it easier. 50mph was probably an exageration as its an extremely busy road and she is a very safe driver. the other girl involved was 18 yrs old so i really dont think that she swerved out to avoid her, when the most natural reaction in the world is to hit the brakes. an 18 yr old girl is hardly michael schumacher. ...

So in other words, you posted a made-up story here looking for help on an incident you were not involved in and did not witness.

When some of the feedback, probably including mine, on the original story doesn't sit well with you, you change the story, 'fess up to the truth and criticise the other party's actions when she faced an emergency. Dare I suggest that this criticism may in part be based on her age and gender?

As I have posted here before, if you want input, put an accurate version of events up here in the first instance with the posting guidelines in mind, and it may be possible to give reasonable feedback.

 

[mathepac]

...
Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, if so my apologies, but the OP seems clear on what happened. This comment could be construed as suggesting he change his story.

That is not what I meant to suggest. In no way would I encourage anyone to tailor or modify their story of the event as a possible "defence".

 

[rmelly]

That is not what I meant to suggest. In no way would I encourage anyone to tailor or modify their story of the event as a possible "defence".

No problem - but I think the OP took it my comment to heart and has changed the story significantly.

coming traffic and she could have killed people - dangerous driving

how much of your sisters car was in the path of oncoming traffic when it came to a stop?

I asked earlier - how far behind was the second driver? If your sister can't say and didn't spot the ice, what was she paying attention to - the car in front? Careless driving?

Your sister wasn't able to stop safely after the first driver stopped. Careless driving?

 

[iggy]

Sorry to be slightly off topic but I`m sittin` here all sunburnt after a very warm May and just wondered when and where there was icy road conditions recently?

 

[TreeTiger]

Given the confusion over the OP's changing story, I would recommend he/she takes the advice he/she gave in his/her post in the last week here.

From the Rules of the Road, Section 6, re Speed:
The basic rule states:
“A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt under control and on the correct side of the road within the distance which the driver can see to be clear.”

On the basis of the above, both the OP's sister and the driver behind were not driving according to the Rules of the Road. However, had the OP's sister not skidded on ice, then the driver behind would likely not have hit the OP's sister, making [imho] the OP's sister responsible for causing the accident, but not leaving the driver behind blame-free. As far as I know, an insurance settlement to the driver behind would probably have a deduction made for contributory negligence.

I hope the driver who was injured makes a full recovery. (By the way, OP, whiplash type injuries often take hours or days to show symptoms, just in case you think the person may be trying it on a bit; also I'd like to point out that the "most natural reaction in the world" is not necessarily to just hit the brakes, the Rules of the Road is full of the phrase "brake or swerve", usually in the context of advising drivers not to take any action that will cause drivers behind to brake or swerve).

Thank goodness nobody died. If this was my sister, I would be advising her to take legal advice.

 

[TreeTiger]

I've just re-read this thread and the OP's posts are definitely confusing -

i was driving along, 50 mph, i slipped on the road due to ice and hit the brakes. my car turned a little to the side , a car that was travelling behind me instead of braking behind me tried to go around me and hit me in the side , turned me upside down and into the ditch.

... it was my sister that was in the crash - not me. i just said me to make it easier. 50mph was probably an exageration ... other girl involved was 18 yrs old so i really dont think that she swerved out to avoid her, when the most natural reaction in the world is to hit the brakes. ... as my sisters car was stopped then the driver behind must have been going at quite a speed.=

the whole thing happened anyway cos the driver in front of my sister braked suddenly, my sis braked then and car skeeted a little and veered to the side and then the girl behind came up and hit my sister. in all fairness , my sis was back far enough not to hit the car in front of her but the other girl wasnt far enough behind my sister to stop.

Perhaps the OP would be able to clarify the situation? I'd be very interested in what the solicitor says on Tuesday, I personally think it's a case of two wrongs, neither of which make a right, but am curious as to who is the most wrong.

 

[wicklowlass]

Given the confusion over the OP's changing story, I would recommend he/she takes the advice he/she gave in his/her post in the last week here.

From the Rules of the Road, Section 6, re Speed:
The basic rule states:
“A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt under control and on the correct side of the road within the distance which the driver can see to be clear.”

On the basis of the above, both the OP's sister and the driver behind were not driving according to the Rules of the Road. However, had the OP's sister not skidded on ice, then the driver behind would likely not have hit the OP's sister, making [imho] the OP's sister responsible for causing the accident, but not leaving the driver behind blame-free. As far as I know, an insurance settlement to the driver behind would probably have a deduction made for contributory negligence.

I hope the driver who was injured makes a full recovery. (By the way, OP, whiplash type injuries often take hours or days to show symptoms, just in case you think the person may be trying it on a bit; also I'd like to point out that the "most natural reaction in the world" is not necessarily to just hit the brakes, the Rules of the Road is full of the phrase "brake or swerve", usually in the context of advising drivers not to take any action that will cause drivers behind to brake or swerve).

Thank goodness nobody died. If this was my sister, I would be advising her to take legal advice.

the OP was refering to a post i replied to last week, i made a spelling error, i must say he was ever so polite to me when i made my error , so will everyone please be understanding as to why he lied here, because he really did give me a chance to clarify the mistake i had made without any sarcasm or smart answers.

 

[Vanilla]

Think other posters are being unnecessarily harsh. I don't see anything contradictory in his posts other than that he posted saying it was himself rather than his sister. So what?